Please define: Leadership.

During my time analysing, writing about, and assisting with the development of leadership, I have heard many, many people attempt to define it. There are so many books on leadership, so many "authorities" and "experts", yet we can't seem to agree on a definition.

Shall we attempt to do so today? :)

Closing Statement from Gareth Armstrong

Hello everyone,

Thank you all for your input.

My conclusion - I feel like we are going to struggle if we are unable to speak a "common leadership language"...if we cannot define leadership, how can we multiply leadership within ourselves and others?

I hope that as you have reflected on how to define it, you have further clarified in your mind where you can further improve as a leader be it in your home, community, or professional environment.

Your comments have assisted me in this way and others. Thank you again.

Jan 27 2013:
At a recent "leadership seminar" Ernest Shackleton was presented as "a role model for leadership as one who, in extreme circumstances, kept his team together in an incredible polar survival story". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Shackleton).

He proved leadership without having entrepreneurship skills, basically all his business ventures failed:
"Away from his expeditions, Shackleton's life was generally restless and unfulfilled. In his search for rapid pathways to wealth and security he launched many business ventures and other money-making schemes, none of which prospered. His financial affairs were generally muddled; he died heavily in debt."

Jan 28 2013:
A leader has a vision. Leaders see a problem that needs to be fixed or a goal that needs to be achieved. It may be something that no one else sees or simply something that no one else wants to tackle. Whatever it is, it is the focus of the leader's attention and they attack it with a single-minded determination.

Jan 27 2013:
You are all missing a very important part of this entire discussion - ie you all start with a world view that all leadership is good. Arguably Hitler was a great leader but also a disaster. Missing from this discussion is efficiency versus effectiveness. Hitler was efficient but not effective - ie he was good at leading but led in the wrong direction.

The correct "direction" is ultimately the one that is best for all stakeholders, with stakeholders being defined very broadly.

Would you rather have a good leader going in the wrong direction or a poor leader going in the right direction? I would rather have the latter - ie errors of omission rather than errors of commission.

Wiith this in mind a discussion of good leadership should center on how do you get leaders that can discern or sense the correct direction to lead.

It is teaching people the objectives, and the means to those objectives, that are in the peoples' best interest. The people will then willingly, vigorously and enthusiastically pursue those objectives. This has the appearance of following a leader, but only because the leader was pursuing the interests of the people.

Jan 26 2013:
Leadership is context dependent. In our current culture, it is the ability to convey confidence and understanding while articulating a clear view of and avenue toward an objective(s). In another culture, its the ability to be the best "you" that you can be and lead by example. It doesn't require an outside objective. The first requires the existence of sheeple (followers). The second, the opposite.

Leadership is when someone takes charge over others or circumstances & leads not necessarily by example but by knowing what they are doing. A good leader will have good communicative skills with everyone below & higher in stature than them & is able to be impartial to any given event or person.

Love
Mathew

TED Conversations Archives

We’ve spent three years sharing Ideas, Debates and Questions — and learned a lot.

Now we’re going on hiatus to retool and rebuild from the inside out for a better conversation experience.